Indeed, research shows that the cost of climate activity far outweighs the cost of reducing carbon pollution. A recent study suggests that if the United States does not meet its climate targets in Paris, it could cost the economy up to $6 trillion in the coming decades. A lack of compliance with the NPNs currently foreseen in the agreement could reduce global GDP by more than 25% by the end of the century. Meanwhile, another study estimates that achieving – or even exceeding – the Paris targets by investing in infrastructure in clean energy and energy efficiency could have great benefits globally – about $19 trillion. While mitigation and adjustment require more climate funding, adjustment has generally received less support and has mobilized fewer private sector actions.  A 2014 OECD report showed that in 2014, only 16% of the world`s financial resources were devoted to adaptation to climate change.  The Paris Agreement called for a balance between climate finance between adaptation and mitigation, highlighting in particular the need to strengthen support for adaptation from the parties most affected by climate change, including least developed countries and small island developing states. The agreement also reminds the parties of the importance of public subsidies, as adjustment measures receive less public sector investment.  John Kerry, as Secretary of State, announced that the United States would double its grant-based adjustment funding by 2020.
 On October 5, 2016, when the agreement reached enough signatures to cross the threshold, U.S. President Barack Obama said, “Even if we achieve all the goals… we will only get to part of where we need to go. He also said that “this agreement will help delay or avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change.” It will help other nations reduce their emissions over time and set bolder goals as technology progresses, all under a strong transparency system that will allow each nation to assess the progress of all other nations.  The Kyoto Protocol, a pioneering environmental treaty adopted at COP3 in Japan in 1997, is the first time that nations have agreed on mandatory country emission reduction targets. The protocol, which only came into force in 2005, set binding emission reduction targets only for industrialized countries, based on the fact that they are responsible for most of the world`s high greenhouse gas emissions. The United States first signed the agreement, but never ratified it; President George W. Bush argued that the agreement would hurt the U.S. economy because developing countries such as China and India would not be included. In the absence of the participation of these three countries, the effectiveness of the treaty was limited, as its objectives covered only a small fraction of total global emissions. Taking part in an election campaign promise, Trump – a climate denier who has claimed that climate change is a “hoax” perpetrated by China, announced in June 2017 his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. But despite the rose garden president`s statement that “we`re going out,” it`s not that simple.
The withdrawal procedure requires that the agreement be in effect for three years before a country can formally announce its intention to withdraw. She`ll have to wait a year before she leaves the pact. This means that the United States could formally withdraw on November 4, 2020, the day after the presidential elections. Even a formal withdrawal would not necessarily be permanent, experts say. a future president could join us in a month.